ADM 612 - Leadership

1
ADM 612 - Leadership

• Lecture 20 Leadership and Decision Making, Part
  II

2
Decision Process First Stages
3
Decision process Last Stages
4
Decision Process Minor or Unimportant Problem

• Major stages.
• Antecedent conditions.
• Challenge threat or opportunity.
• Expert prediction about potential losses from
  business as usual.
• Mediating processes.
• The problem is perceived as unimportant or
  routine.

5
Decision Process Minor or Unimportant Problem

• Major Stages.
• Decision process.
• Reliance on SOPs or cognitive decision rules.
• Consequences.
• If decision is unimportant Efficient use of
  resources.
• If decision is really important High danger of
  major losses from failure to anticipate.

6
Problem Important Cognitive Limitations Dominant

• Major stages.
• Antecedent conditions.
• Challenge threat or opportunity.
• Expert prediction about potential losses from
  business as usual.
• Organizational reports about difficulties of
  solving problem or lack of time or resources.
• Mediating processes.
• Problem is important.
• Perception that cognitive limitations make
  information search futile.

7
Problem Important Cognitive Limitations Dominant

• Major stages.
• Decision process.
• Reliance on SOPs or cognitive decision rules.
• Consequences.
• If decision is unimportant Low risk of loss from
  bad decision.
• If decision is really important High danger of
  major losses from failure to anticipate.

8
Problem Important Affiliative Constraints
Dominant

• Major stages.
• Antecedent conditions.
• Challenge threat or opportunity.
• Expert prediction about potential losses from
  business as usual.
• Official or informal messages about social
  pressures in organization.
• Mediating processes.
• Problem is important.
• Conformity pressures or affiliative constraints
  are dominant..

9
Problem Important Affiliative Constraints
Dominant

• Major stages.
• Decision processes.
• Reliance on simple affiliative decision rules.
• Consequences.
• If decision is unimportant Low risk of losses
  from bad decisions.
• If decision is really important High danger of
  major losses from failure to anticipate.

10
Problem Important Egocentric Constraints Dominant

• Major stages.
• Antecedent conditions.
• Challenge threat or opportunity.
• Expert prediction about potential losses from
  business as usual.
• Provocative information about the challenge that
  elicits strong emotional response.
• Mediating processes.
• Problem is important.
• Personal motive must be given priority.

11
Problem Important Egocentric Constraints Dominant

• Major stages.
• Decision process.
• Reliance on simple self-serving or emotive rules.
• Consequences.
• If decision is unimportant low risk of losses
  from bad decisions.
• If decision is really important High danger of
  major losses from failure to anticipate.

12
Problem Important No Constraints Dominant

• Major stages.
• Antecedent conditions.
• Challenge threat or opportunity.
• Expert prediction about potential losses from
  business as usual.
• No overriding constraints are dominant
  (cognitive, affiliative, egocentric).
• Mediating processes.
• The problem is perceived as important.

13
Problem Important No Constraints Dominant

• Major stages.
• Decision process.
• Vigilant problem solving.
• Consequences.
• If decision is unimportant Inefficient
  management of minor threat or opportunity.
• If decision is really important Danger of major
  losses low because of sound decision procedures.

14
Mixed Model of Constraints
15
Values and Limitations of the Constraints Model

• What can and cannot be predicted.
• Can diagnose frequency and severity of symptoms
  of defective policymaking.
• If evidence exists for assessing the presence and
  absence of the antecedent conditions, predictions
  can be made about what type of problem solving
  approach is to be used.
• Cannot be used to predict alternatives chosen.

16
Shortcomings of Vigilant Problem Solving

• The solutions arrived at by vigilant problem
  solving are certainly fallible.
• Vigilant problem solving takes up much more time
  and is much more costly in terms of
  organizational resources than a simplistic
  approach.

17
Shortcomings of Vigilant Problem Solving

• Another shortcoming of vigilant problem solving
  is that it cannot be counted upon to pinpoint the
  crucial policy problems that require solutions.
• There is no acceptable procedure for resolving
  conflicts in goals among contending powerholders.

18
Interactive Policy-making

• Members of a faction are more likely to be
  successful in a power struggle if they rely on
  vigilant problem-solving.

19
Interactive Policy-making

• The constraints model cannot be applied if the
  innovators of a policy that bubbles up remain
  anonymous and the policy becomes operative
  without any identifiable executives having
  approved it.
• An unplanned or inadvertently created policy.

20
Five Factors of Personality

• Conscientiousness.
• Openness.
• Neuroticism.

21
Five Factors of Personality

• Agreeableness.
• Extraversion.
• The first three have most impact on decisions.

22
Four Pathways to Policy Decisions of Poor Quality
1
23
Four Pathways to Policy Decisions of Poor Quality
2
24
Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision
Underestimating Importance.

• Antecedent conditions.
• Challenge threat or opportunity.
• Expert prediction of losses from business as
  usual or changes.
• Personality deficiencies.
• Lack of conscientiousness.
• Lack of openness.
• Cool, calm, detached coping style.
• Chronic optimism concerning stability and low
  vulnerability of organization.

25
Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision
Underestimating Importance.

• Evaluation.
• Problem is perceived as unimportant when it is
  important.
• Decision-making strategy.
• Reliance on SOPs and simple cognitive rules.
• Consequence.
• High probability of avoidable losses.

26
Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision
Overreacting to Cognitive Constraints.

• Antecedent conditions.
• Challenge threat or opportunity.
• Organizational reports about problem solving or
  lack of time and resources..
• Personality deficiencies.
• Chronic low self-confidence.
• Chronic pessimism about organizations capacity
  to provide essential resources for problem
  solving.

27
Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision
Overreacting to Cognitive Constraints.

• Evaluation.
• Problem is perceived as important.
• But, cognitive constraints are more important
• Decision-making strategy.
• Reliance on SOPs and simple cognitive rules.
• Consequence.
• High probability of avoidable losses.

28
Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision
Overreacting to Affiliative Constraints.

• Antecedent conditions.
• Challenge threat or opportunity.
• Official or informal information about social
  pressures, acceptance of policy, retaliation, or
  loss of social support.
• Personality deficiencies.
• Strong need for social approval.
• Strong need for power and status.
• Chronic paranoia about ruthlessness of others in
  organization.
• High dependence on cohesive group.

29
Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision
Overreacting to Affiliative Constraints.

• Evaluation.
• Problem is perceived as important.
• But, affiliative constraints are more important.
• Decision-making strategy.
• Reliance on simple affiliative rules.
• Consequence.
• High probability of avoidable losses.

30
Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision
Overreacting to Egocentric Constraints.

• Antecedent conditions.
• Challenge threat or opportunity.
• Provocative information about challenge that
  elicits emotional response.
• Personality deficiencies.
• Lack of conscientiousness.
• Negativism and hostility toward organization.\
• Low stress tolerance.
• Lack of perceived control.
• Ambivalence toward organization.
• Habitual externalized anger-coping style.
• Chronic hostility toward opponents.

31
Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision
Overreacting to Egocentric Constraints.

• Evaluation.
• Problem is perceived as important.
• But, egocentric constraints are more important.
• Decision-making strategy.
• Reliance on simple egocentric decision rules.
• Consequence.
• High probability of avoidable losses.

32
Pathway to Policy Decisions of Good Quality 3
33
Pathways to Good Quality Decision

• Antecedent conditions.
• Challenge threat or opportunity.
• Supplementary information of all kinds.
• Personality deficiencies.
• None that affect response to supplementary
  information.

34
Pathways to Good Quality of Decision.

• Evaluation.
• Problem is perceived as important.
• No overriding constraints.
• Decision-making strategy.
• Vigilant problem solving.
• Adequate completion of all key steps.
• Consequence.
• Low probability of avoidable losses.

35
Who Will Be Good Policy Makers and Who Will Not?

• Who Goofs Off?
• Chronic lack of conscientiousness will lead
  executives to be relatively inattentive to cues
  that function as initial warnings to others.
• Chronic lack of openness will lead executives to
  apply existing organizational routines to
  practically all warnings.
• Calm, cool, detached coping style executives
  going calmly about their business in the face of
  danger while others around them are upset.
• Chronic optimism leads executives to belittle the
  implications of all sorts of warnings because
  they expect the organization to have very low
  vulnerability to whatever dangers may materialize.

36
Who Will Be Good Policy Makers and Who Will Not?

• Who Cant Hack It?
• Low self-confidence will lead executives to be
  highly responsive to information that calls
  attention to the difficulties and complications
  of any policy problem, with the result that they
  would feel unable to hack it.
• Chronic pessimism will dispose executives to
  accept communications that call attention to lack
  of expertise or lack of other resources.

37
Who Will Be Good Policy Makers and Who Will Not?

• Who Cant Say No?
• Chronically strong need for social approval
  Executives will be highly responsive to all forms
  of social pressure.
• Strong need for status and power More responsive
  than others to informational inputs that convey
  threats of retaliation from others for failing to
  support their preferred policies.

38
Who Will Be Good Policy Makers and Who Will Not?

• Who Cant Say No?
• Chronic apprehensiveness about the ruthlessness
  of others A relatively low threshold for
  informational inputs that convey threats of loss
  of compensation, power, or status for
  nonconformity.
• High dependency upon a cohesive group of fellow
  executives for social support Groupthink.

39
Who Will Be Good Policy Makers and Who Will Not?

• Who is self-serving?
• Chronic lack of conscientiousness Tend to ignore
  warnings about dangers to organizations (Hyp. 1),
  low threshold for responsiveness to
  communications that arouse self-serving motives.
• Persistent negativism or hostility toward the
  organization Responsive to informational inputs
  that arouse strong personal motives.

40
Who Will Be Good Policy Makers and Who Will Not?

• Who gets discombobulated?
• Low stress tolerance Adopt a coping strategy of
  either defensive avoidance or hypervigilance.
• Lack of perceived control over outcomes Will
  become hypervigilant when confronted with
  challenging events that require major changes.

41
Who Will Be Good Policy Makers and Who Will Not?

• Who gets discombobulated?
• Persistent ambivalence toward the organization
  makes executive sensitive to remote dangers and
  perceived adversities leading to either defensive
  avoidance or hypervigilance.
• Habitual externalized anger-coping style
  sensitive to provocations that curtail vigilant
  problem-solving and move the executive to
  retaliation.
• Persistent hostility toward major opponents
  Retaliate.

42
Effective Leadership Practices

• Preventing inadvertently goofing off.
• When the discussion of an ambiguous threat
  reveals a lack of consensus about importance,
  promote vigilant problem-solving.
• Even if a consensus is reached that the problem
  is unimportant, encourage low confidence in the
  decision and promote vigilance.

43
Effective Leadership Practices

• Preventing inadvertently goofing off.
• If the threat is considered important, but the
  problem it poses is not because an obvious
  solution is available, encourage constructive
  doubt about the solution to make sure all bases
  are covered.

44
Effective Leadership Practices

• Helping a policymaking group hack it.
• When an impending threat appears to impose
  prohibitive costs for the organization, effective
  leadership counteracts the perceptions of
  insurmountable obstacles.
• Whenever decision-makers fail to make progress on
  a complex threat, break the problem into
  sub-problems.

45
Effective Leadership Practices

• Enable members of a policymaking group to say no
  to conformity pressures.
• Whenever members of the group asset that it will
  be impossible to get acceptance for some
  important options, take steps to overcome the
  organizational constraint.
• Whenever the members of a group shown signs of
  relying on a simple decision rule to conform to
  avoid punishment, take steps to counteract the
  strong social pressures.
• Take steps to counteract the tendency of
  subordinates to withhold or distort bad news out
  of concern for punishment.

46
Effective Leadership Practices

• Enable members of a policymaking group to say no
  to conformity pressures.
• Whenever there are indications that some members
  are opposed to leaders preference, avoid rigging
  the meeting.
• Whenever a group is functioning with a high
  degree of esprit de corps or compatibility, take
  steps to avoid group think.

47
Effective Leadership Practices

• Curbing self-serving motives.
• Whenever incentives are present that might tempt
  members to pursue self-serving motives, openly
  note the temptation and reemphasize ethical
  norms.
• Whenever there are indications over a series of
  meetings that some members are being influenced
  by self-serving motives, take steps to counteract.

48
Effective Leadership Practices

• Curbing self-serving motives.
• When the members of a group are moving toward a
  consensus on an option that will give priority to
  a self-serving motive, defer a final solution and
  introduce counteracting incentives by making
  their accountability important to other
  powerholders.

49
Effective Leadership Practices

• Minimizing emotional discombobulation.
• Arrange for all members of the group to be given
  stress inoculation training via crisis simulation
  exercises.
• During a severe crisis, when members are
  undergoing stress, raise questions, provide
  informative briefings, and make statements to
  alleviate acute feelings of apprehensiveness.

50
Effective Leadership Practices

• Minimizing emotional discombobulation.
• Whenever the danger of severe losses appears to
  be so imminent that some members believe that the
  time is too short to allow time to work out a
  good solution, take steps to counteract severe
  time pressures.

51
Effective Leadership Practices

• Minimizing emotional discombobulation.
• During any long drawn-out crisis, whenever
  members of the group are undergoing prolonged
  stress, provide information and comments that are
  likely to provide a realistic basis for hope.
• On those occasions when some group members are
  temporarily displaying anger or other emotions,
  intervene to counteract the adverse influence of
  the members strong emotional needs.

52
Effective Leadership Practices

• Deterring premature commitment.
• Whenever a policymaking group appears to have
  reached consensus on the best possible course of
  action, make a rapid, rough-and-ready diagnosis
  of residual symptoms of defective decision making
  and then take steps to eliminate them.
• Whenever the leader surmises that the group is
  not functioning at its highest potential level
  despite corrective efforts, make a careful
  diagnosis of the constraints that are sources of
  the resistance and take steps to counteract their
  influence.